The great tree debate

Which is better for the environment: Real or fake?

December 20, 2010

Which is better for the environment, an artificial tree or a real tree?

Trying to figure this one out can drive you right up a Douglas fir. And the confusingly named American Christmas Tree Association (which advocates artificial trees) and National Christmas Tree Association (farmed trees) don't help much with their conflicting information on the issue.

But last year, a Montreal-based sustainability consulting firm called Ellipsos commissioned a life-cycle analysis of both types of trees and found that the purchase of a 7-foot real tree generates 3.1 kilograms of heat-trapping carbon dioxide and that the same size artificial tree generates 48.3 kilograms over its lifetime.

Because most people use their artificial tree for an average of six years, that puts a real tree in the winner's corner. But there are caveats. Artificial trees will win out if the consumer drives more than nine miles to purchase a real tree or uses an artificial tree for more than 20 years.

Other options are on the horizon. One British company is developing a greener fake tree by using recycled material. And some tree farms are being recognized for improved tree growing practices that employ fewer pesticides and better soil management and water protection. Many of those farms are located in Oregon, but it's worth checking with local farms to see if they have adopted the practices.

Other businesses have sprung up to "rent" living potted trees that are planted in the ground after the holidays. Most of those operations are also on the West Coast.

No matter what kind of tree you get, you can lower your carbon footprint by disposing of it properly. For a real tree, that means getting it recycled and mulched — find local outlets at Earth911.com. And for an artificial tree that is still usable, that means donating it to a resale shop.

You could also buy a secondhand tree, or you can avoid buying one altogether by decorating a houseplant or an outdoor tree in the yard.

— Monica Eng

Tree versus tree

Ecological downsides of artificial trees:

•Big carbon footprint from manufacturing (steel and plastics made from petrochemicals) and the initial trip to the consumer, usually from China.

•The polyvinyl chloride used to make the branches of many trees is not biodegradable, and the trees are very hard to recycle.

•Artificial trees have no natural scent, leading some to use aerosol sprays or pine fresheners that can emit hazardous fumes and chemicals, according to a University of Washington study.

Ecological downsides of real trees:

•Christmas trees require several applications of chemicals to control pests and speed growth. The chemical residue on cut trees is minimal, but pesticides used in production have been found in groundwater. Both pyrethroids and the more toxic organophosphates are used on Christmas trees.

•Although many municipalities offer Christmas tree recycling programs, there are no solid statistics on what percentage of consumers actually use them and what percentage of trees end up in landfills.